Joining the Conversation: Teaching Students to Think and Communicate Like Scholars

Emily L. Parks
Thompson Writing Program, Duke University

Author Note

I have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This research was approved by Duke University’s Campus
Institutional Review Board (Protocol 2020-0093).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily L. Parks, Thompson Writing
Program, Trinity College of Arts & Sciences, Duke University, 1 Brodie Gym Drive, Durham, NC
27708, United States. Email: emily.parks@institution.edu

Joining the Conversation: Teaching Students to Think and Communicate Like Scholars
Across undergraduate psychology curriculums, students are taught to explore human behavior
through the scientific method. They are often asked to form research questions, design studies, and
interpret the resulting data. Less commonly, however, are students taught the final step of the
scientific method: building and communicating an idea among scholars (Hogan & Fisherkeller,
2005).
As a result, students often fail to appreciate the ongoing exchange of ideas that occurs between
scholars (Goodney & Long, 2007), what rhetorician Kenneth Burke described as the “unending
conversation” (Burke, 1941, pp. 110–111). For scholars in psychology, this conversation might
manifest directly via peer review or coauthoring or more indirectly through the framing of data
within the context of others’ texts and theories (Harris, 2017). Across these cases, psychologists
build their work—their theories, experiments, and interpretations—by engaging with other scholars
and their ideas.
This engagement structures how we, as psychological scientists, think. Most students, however,
have a limited understanding of how scientists interact to build knowledge over time (Hunter et al.,
2007). In my experience, we do not give our students enough time or space to struggle through the
scientific process, as scientists do. At best, we might ask students to engage in a single scholarly
practice (e.g., write an academic piece, pose a question, or work in groups). Indeed, some empirical
research in the natural sciences has demonstrated that each of these pedagogical techniques—
writing, inquiry-based research, collaboration—can enhance students’ critical thinking (Quitadamo
& Kurtz, 2007).
For example, Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) found that students who participated in a laboratory
writing component in an introductory biology course significantly improved their inference and
analysis skills compared with students who completed more traditional laboratory quizzes. Hein
(2012) found that students who learned organic chemistry through an inquiry-based approach
scored significantly higher on nationally standardized chemistry exams compared with students
who learned through lectures. Finally, Quitadamo et al. (2009) demonstrated gains in critical
thinking across six math and science courses for students participating in collaborative learning
compared with a noncollaborative approach (Quitadamo et al., 2009). These studies provide
empirical evidence that writing, inquiry-based research, and collaboration are all techniques that
can enhance student learning. How these techniques can be used together in a more holistic
approach is less understood.
Recent work in chemistry education has indicated that more holistic approaches may better mimic
how scientists operate in the real world (Stephenson et al., 2019; Stephenson & Sadler-McKnight,
2016). Stephenson et al. (2019) found that students in introductory chemistry who were taught via
an approach that combined writing, inquiry-based research, and collaboration showed significant
gains in two empirical measures of critical thinking—inference and evaluation—unlike students
taught through traditional lectures. Stephenson et al. hypothesized that the large gains in critical
thinking reflect a synergistic effect resulting from the combinatory approach.
In this article, I argue for a similar approach in psychology—one that combines multiple scholarly
practices and thus better mirrors how scientists operate in the real world. As an example, I present
a scaffolded writing project in which I asked students to write collaboratively, conduct inquiry-based
research, and engage in peer review across the writing process. In this way, students could learn to
appreciate and join a scholarly conversation. I hypothesize that combinatory approaches, like the
one presented here, can help students make significant gains in critical thinking.
Why Writing?

Writing offers one of the most effective ways for making thinking visible (Reynolds et al., 2012) and,
when applied to disciplinary questions, helps students learn to think like disciplinary experts (Bean,
2011; Dowd et al., 2018; Meizlish et al., 2013). The act of writing is a form of problem-solving
(Flower, 1998) that, like critical thinking, requires the coordination of many skills, including
planning, organization, and argumentation (Dunn & Smith, 2008). Writing can help students identify
areas of confusion, reason through problems, connect concepts, and analyze assumptions (Dunn et
al., 2013; Forsyth, 2003). As a practice, writing is ideally suited to foster critical thinking that mirrors
that of disciplinary experts (Dowd et al., 2018; Meizlish et al., 2013; Reynolds et al., 2012).
Collaborative writing, in particular, can help foster scholarly modes of thinking and communication.
It creates a community of learners who provide cognitive and social support beyond that available
to an individual working alone (Brown & Campione, 1996). In collaboration, students can better
organize their thoughts and identify gaps in their own reasoning (Okita, 2012; Speck, 2002) as well
as evaluate the evidence and assumptions underlying their claims (Stephenson & Sadler-McKnight,
2016). These modes of thinking are especially important when students are asked to develop their
own questions and subsequent responses.
Collaboration is critically important not only when an idea is initially developed but also when an
idea is molded and refined through peer review. Like writing, peer review can benefit students’
thinking (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Matsuhashi et al., 1989). By seeing others’ logical missteps,
students can learn to identify an argument’s gaps or organizational inconsistencies (Beach, 1989;
Ferris, 2003; Thompson, 2002) and to analyze ideas from perspectives beyond their own (Paulus,
1999). As a result, students who engage in peer review tend to revise their own work more
extensively, produce stronger texts, and better understand the scientific process (Brieger &
Bromley, 2014; Guilford, 2001; Lee, 1997; Rangachari, 2010; Rollinson, 2005; Trautmann, 2009).
Some empirical evidence has suggested that even web-based peer-review programs can improve
students’ learning, but only when they are designed to address higher-order writing concerns
(Reynolds & Moskovitz, 2008). Thus, it seems the greatest gains come when we challenge students
to look beyond editing concerns and address the kinds of questions that scientists ask of their own
work.
In sum, by engaging in scholarly conversation—through collaborative writing, inquiry-based
research, and peer review—students can learn to think like scientists. These practices, in
combination, form the basis for the pedagogical model presented here.
A Writing-Centered Approach

My approach asks students to take on the role of scholar—to build and communicate an idea within
a community of peers. It centers on a sequenced writing project in which student pairs cowrite a
literature review on a topic of their choice. The goal of the project is to develop a novel claim by
forwarding previous research. This requires students to first frame their ideas within the context of
existing scholarly work and to then collaborate with peers as they develop their argument and give
and receive feedback. The project is heavily scaffolded using a combination of pedagogical
techniques, some of which have been shown individually to enhance student learning (Hein, 2012;
Quitadamo et al., 2009; Quitadamo & Kurtz, 2007), whereas others are in need of empirical testing
(e.g., synthesis matrices, annotations responses, dialogue activities).
Course Design

The project was assigned to 1st-year students as part of an introductory, seminar-style writing
course at Duke University (12 students per course). The course was open to all 1st-year students
regardless of their intended major (at Duke, majors are not officially declared until the fourth
semester of enrollment). The course was offered as one of many Writing 101 sections, each taught
through a different disciplinary lens based on the expertise of the professor. As a cognitive
psychologist and neuroscientist by training, I centered my course on neurolaw, an emerging field
that explores how discoveries in brain science affect the U.S. justice system. For the project I
propose here, students explored any topic at the intersection of psychology and law (upon my
approval). However, the project could be applied in many different fields of study.
The project unfolded over several stages, each framed within the scholarly conversation and
designed to help students build critical-thinking and communication skills. Students produced
several assignments, including a proposal, annotated bibliography and responses, synthesis matrix,
and three drafts. Although students wrote most of the assignments outside of class, I often
provided class time for collaborative work, check-in meetings, and peer review. In this way,
students were in continuous dialogue with their partners and peers across the writing process.
Next, I list the project stages (for a visual depiction, see Figure 1).